It’s that time of the year again, folks, when the social media admin for Halfords – the UK’s largest retailer of cycling products and services – scratches their head, has a long think over their morning coffee, and then decides to post something that will annoy cyclists and pit motorists against them.
Last year, Halfords decided to weigh in on the whole bike helmet debate, for some reason (surely not to sell helmets?), by advising cyclists that they “strongly recommend” wearing one… just in case a tree branch falls on your head.
> "Wear a helmet!" Halfords advises... because a tree branch might fall on your head
And, just like clockwork, this winter’s questionable post comes courtesy of a gloriously ambiguous graphic depicting a cyclist and a motorist on the road, along with the not-at-all-inflammatory question: “Who has right of way?”
The eyebrow-raising post has so far received 9,000 comments and shares, so it’s fair to say the social media admin has done their job – but if you were expecting a thoughtful, articulate Facebook discussion on the new Highway Code and its pyramid of vulnerable road users, you’d be sorely mistaken.
Instead, get your anti-cycling bingo cards at the ready…
“Car. We pay to use the road,” answered Bryan, very helpfully.
“The one who pays road tax!” added Rob, even more helpfully.
While David, the most helpful of all, wrote: “The car has right of way , because he pays road tax and insurance – the cyclist should be on the pavement eating its vegan sausage roll and reading this week’s Trainspotting Weekly.”
Great stuff David, cheers.
> Cycling sales down at Halfords as retailer shifts focus to car repairs
“Cyclists have breaks [sic] too and should assess the situation and not assume they have priority,” says Sean.
“Doesn’t look like there’s a cycle lane and I’d assume the car would be indicating left well before this so really the bike shouldn’t be in this position,” added the very presumptuous Eddie.
And that’s before we even get to Danny’s extremely coherent comment, the contents of which I’ve decided to leave fully intact for your Monday morning enjoyment:
You now the answer ??the first thing you would be told use your mirror ?? But the ciclist would be right because there is no laws for ciclist or padestrion only punish drivers ????
Make of that what you will…
Meanwhile, Anthony claimed “it’s the car” who has priority because “1) Car is in front. 2) Bike is undertaking. 3) There is no bike lane.”
But, thankfully not everyone interpreted the admittedly highly dubious graphic in the same way.
Replying to Anthony, Jamie wrote: “It’s not. Maybe back in 2000. Even maybe in 2019. In 2023 it’s the bike.
“This is exactly why the theory test should expire every two or three years. Most people just follow the rules they were taught when they passed their test, sometimes many decades ago.”
> Halfords remains "very, very confident" about cycling market, despite overall annual profits falling by 55 percent
Meanwhile, ignoring the whole tedious discussion, others were extremely critical of Halfords even bringing the whole thing up in the first place, along with the questionable use of the term ‘right of way’.
“There’s no such term as ‘right of way; it’s who has priority, so please ask the question correctly before asking for answers Halfords, okay?” wrote Dean.
“Very poor and antagonistic of Halfords”, said John, before answering the antagonistic question anyway, “but let’s assume the car overtook the bike then made a left hand turn, then the bike has right of way, if the cyclist is undertaking (though assuming there’s no standing traffic so unlikely) then the cyclist is as daft as a brush, though this needs to be a video so that we can see the whole story, instead of making a decision on a snapshot.”
Okay…
Philippa, who alerted us to the post, described it as “shameful”, and says she has forwarded it – along with the “atrocious and inaccurate” comments – to Cycling UK and Stop Killing Cyclists.
I’m sure next year’s Halfords cycling post will go down much better…
Add new comment
54 comments
the bike doesnt even have a back wheel showing, and the pedals seem to extend upto the handlebars, which seems a pretty odd setup, maybe its a penny farthing.
or maybe its just a generic picture and were supposed to take the overall themes from it, and not pedantically pick it apart.
If the question isn't correct, then the answer will not be either.
So ... which scenario are you deciding on here..
Cyclist undertaking
Driver left hooking
Driver turning by mutual consent
What's the image telling *you*?
Except they didn't explain the rules regarding the Traffic Act. They tossed in a grenade and stepped back.
Their £1 florescent and reflective slapbands are alright.
New one for the bingo card:
Cyclists should have breakdown cover.
If such a thing were available, I'd probably get it.
ETA do it for £24 a year, or included in their bike insurance. If you have a problem you call them and they will pick you up and take you up to 25 miles home, to a train station, or to a bike shop.
There are loadsa providers.
I can officially confirm that this is one thing I knew, that Rendel Harris did not know.
Ah, that's you over on that there Twitter, is it? Certainly didn't know about it but may well be investing come the spring and longer rides (at the moment, riding in and around London, I'm never more than a couple of miles' walk to a train station to get the bike home if it is irrevocably broken).
I had a feeling when I posted that I would be told there was such a thing.
Still haven't seen you both in the same place at once though.
Rendel Harris x Google
Yes I can indeed confirm that if I don't know something or need to confirm it then I will use a reference book, dictionary or Google to check. I find it's preferable to learn new stuff when one can rather than remain stupidly pig ignorant for one's whole life, but each to their own.
a quick google finds call assist cycle rescue
"24 hour support" - excellent
"Rider, pillion and cycle will be taken to the nearest repair shop, point of amenity, or home" Never had a pillion on my bicycle, so this is confusing, unless it is an unusual way of refering to the stoker on a tandem.
Nearest repair shop, point of amenity or home seems of questionable benefit for incidents occuring out of hours. Or does point of amenity include a hotel? Unless the hotel is close to a bike shop/train station this doesn't really complete a rescue. who chooses what the point of amenity should be? policy holder of coverage provider?
But how is all of this compatible with Audax? is my big question, since riders must be self sufficient. Does having such a policy void my entry?
Ah but if you read between the lines on the Halfords comments you notice a common underlying assumption is that the cyclist is travelling faster than the car.
A shift in public mindset is happening.
David there, displaying the sort of dehumanizing language you'd expect from a concentration camp guard. Or Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs.
Sean at least acknowledges that cyclists are people, but is otherwise so reactionary that he wishes to wind the clock back to the days before "woke" laws (not any specific "woke laws", but the concept of laws in their entirety being "woke") when being encasted in metal, be it a suit of armour or a Vauxhall Vectra, was all that mattered. An advocate for revoking the Magna Carta it seems.
Are you sure that user's name was "Anthony" and not Max Verstappen?
A very simple test is either:-
i. If you'd made that manouver whilst taking your driving test, would you'd have passed?
ii. Would you have done that in front of a marked Police car.
If the answer to either is no, then you probably shouldn't have done it.
Alternatively, replace the cyclist with a bus and then think about whether the car would left-hook a bus. The advantage of using a bus is that bus lanes operate in a similar fashion to cycle lanes and thus drivers would be used to seeing a bus coming up on their inside.
Perhaps they should introduce a pedestrian (going straight on) into the mix.
Or a horse.
Horse, car or bike could be turning left.
asking PC_Plod 'do you think this would constitute a fail or halt under driving test conditions?' usually ends rhetoric about how someone's driving "isn't really a risk to other road users".
it often inspires a deer-in-the-headlights response, which is Most Curious.
Once upon a time in a land not-so far away the Police Service had Road Traffic specialists called the Traffic Division. They were world class, so that other countries invited them to help in establishing and training their 'cops'.
Then the government decided that the Police Service should be more efficient, i.e. do more for less, and when that failed, just do less. The Association of Chief Police Officers was forced to decide which crimes were important so that the Police Service had Legitimacy in the voters view. So they decided that Road Traffic policing wasn't real crime and the Traffic Division could be closed down.
Thus PC Plod has to be a multi-skilled person including Traffic offences but with only a DVSA Drivers Licence [Minimum accaptable standard for the public highway] to inform their actions. They know no more than the general driving public because they don't have focus and training, never mind a Pursuit rating..
Unsurprisingly, we get what we pay for at best.
We don't get what we pay for. It's just that the money now gets syphoned off into Tory donor pockets...
If the car has been overtaking the cyclist, then that is a dangerously close pass even if the driver doesn't subsequently left hook the cyclist.
I was going to say that!
Pages